Tactics oppose unions’ mission

Unions originally had lofty goals, to protect workers rights and to improve quality of life through fair pay. The United Food & Commercial Workers want to deprive other local workers of their rights to make a fair living by asking us not to buy from them. And why? To bolster their own bargaining power. Seems to go against the basic reasons they were founded and just one more example of how modern union tactics now often harm our economy far more than they help it. – Mark Blakey, Bonita

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

Violence part of Syria’s history

Regarding current U-T article(s) on the Syrian rebellion, I recently traveled abroad and suffered through endless international news articles on Syria’s plight and the role the West needs to play in their world.

As reading material for the trip I brought along historian Tom Holland’s book titled “Rubicon” and was simply depressed by the following quote in his book: “For decades Syria had served as a breeding ground for anarchy and violent visions of apocalypse.”

The quote was in reference to why a certain General felt the need to invade and conquer Syria. The general was Pompey, and the year was 75 B.C. – Robb Huff, Coronado

Hillary [Clinton] is appalled by Russia sending arms to Syria (June 13), which is just plain silly when you realize that the U.S. government’s military-industrial complex is the biggest arms dealer on the planet.

The superpowers are doing their favorite thing by arming opposite sides in a region of the world that now has all the factors in place for a regional war. – Connie Frankowiak, Julian

Protect pets on holiday

The Fourth of July is the worst day for dogs ending up in shelters and emergency hospitals, and unfortunately too many end up dead in the road. They experience absolute terror from hearing the loud noises of the holiday.

Please keep your dog safely indoors during this special holiday. People love their dogs and they want to include them, but taking them along on a Fourth of July outing can lead to disaster. – Trish Hausman, San Diego

40 years since Munich massacre

The IOC should remember the 11 Israeli athletes murdered during the Munich Olympics by Palestinian terrorists.

Such remembrance is fitting 40 years after the event for an organization that espouses world peace and friendly competition.

The International Olympic Committee has no grounds to continue denying this request, unless it is being pressured by anti-Israel political forces.

The IOC claims paid tribute to the memory of the athletes on several occasions; yet, the record shows that the IOC has never held an official public commemoration for this group.

The 2012 Olympics will last 24,480 minutes. Devoting one minute to the memory of the murdered Israeli athletes is not too much to ask. – Monica Simpson, La Jolla

Don’t change ultimate punishment

Catherine Thiemann (Letters, June 13) points to the suicide of longtime death row inmate James Crummel as a curious justification for doing away with capital punishment in our state, suggesting apparently that extended ennui, an inevitable result of the endless capital punishment appeals’ process, brought this vicious criminal to his end.

Her solution? “Vote ‘yes’ on “SAFE California,” an upcoming proposition that would make life without parole the ultimate punishment for the most horrific of crimes and free those poor murderers of an agonizing death while waiting for the slow wheels of justice to turn. Eliminating the death sentence, she asserts, will save much of the money we expend on automatic appeals and allow those moneys to be spent “clearing some of the state’s thousands of unsolved murders, giving victims’ families a chance to move on with their lives.” Taking away state-sponsored killing, she continues, will “end the risk of executing an innocent person.”

I suggest a compromise. We’ll execute only those guilty without doubt of their heinous crimes – DNA evidence will help – and demand that the appeals process for such obviously culpable individuals be greatly reduced. Then people can write letters bemoaning the diminished salaries of criminal attorneys and worry less about victims’ families “getting on with their lives,” while those who murdered their loved ones fall on soft bunks after an exhausting day of ball games and weightlifting, chow and television. – Charles Thompson, La Mesa

Helping the few

San Diego’s already struggling economy is headed for a bigger downward spiral indicative of the early ’90s unless something can be done to steer us off this path of utter destruction. As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq finally wind down, the nation and San Diego in particular brace for a huge influx of returning servicemen and women back into civilian life and looking for hire. The president’s Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 gives the impression of being the right answer, but is it? And it is just?

As a Navy wife I fully understand what these brave men and women sacrifice for our country and I am sympathetic for their need for a job when returning home. However, I am currently unemployed, and as a civilian I fear that the ever-so-small job market will become exponentially smaller as a result of this Vow to Hire Heroes Act, thus leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves and get turned down for jobs that we are fully qualified for but lack the title “war hero.” It would appear that this act helps the unemployment rate for few rather then all.

Helping only a few, although warranted, does not cure what ails us. It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken bone, futile and a waste of everyone’s time and money. The real issue here is the down-turned economy and the need for jobs. Improving the economy should be the government’s main focus so that when these servicemen and women do come back there is an abundance of jobs waiting for them to fill that they are qualified for. Instead, businesses hire a veteran just to get a tax credit, regardless of any other qualifications.

The Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 attempts to quickly resolve only one aspect of a much larger problem that has been years in the making. There are components of this act that offer valuable support for veterans in need of assistance, but there is very little evidence to support that this act will accomplish the large task that it has set out to do and much more is needed to help the economy not just one population. – Lorien Markuszka, San Diego

Disingenuous dissent

In response to “For attorney, fighting annual July 4 fireworks is patriotic duty,” Local, June 13): Am I the only person wondering why Marco Gonzales doesn’t take his surfboard and fax machine down to Imperial Beach and tackle the sewage problem that’s being going on as long as we all can remember? You needn’t be a genius, scientist, activist lawyer, or pie-eyed columnist to know the constant stream of sewage oozing out of the Tijuana River is infinitely worse for the environment than microscopic bits of fireworks blown up in the sky once or twice a year!

In this case, constantly suing (harassing) our cities over fireworks, etc., is not an example of dissent. It is instead, a glaring an example of one person’s bullheaded attempts to make a name for himself by assaulting our freedoms and harmless traditions, with no specific scientific proof of a problem!

If environmental lawyers seek adulation and monetary judgments for their work, they should immediately stop crying wolf over our Fourth of July celebrations and show the courage to focus their legal jihad on the very real health hazards created by a perennial river of sewage! Now that would be a tremendous public service we all would support! – Mike Trout, Rancho Peñasquitos

When does free speech go too far?

When our forefathers wrote the First Amendment which gave us the freedom of speech, they surely never meant that citizens would hide behind this amendment to vilify, demean, denigrate, or disparage their country, the United States of America. Is this happening today?

When an American general did so in the late 1700s, he was convicted and put on a ship for the remainder of his life never to set foot on our soil again. His name was Benedict Arnold. This sentence proves that the founding fathers never intended the amendment to protect citizens who denigrate and curse our country.

Some citizens of the U.S. have repeatedly shown a degree of hatred with language that might make this paper smolder. We need a law in our Congress that allows criticism but places a limit on a show of violent speech against our country.

We could call this law the Benedict Arnold Act. People showing hatred above normal should then be penalized in some way. Consider the following, deportation, incarceration, limitation on travel, loss of driving and voting privileges, or named on a “Not Wanted in My City” list.

The authors of the Constitution probably never imagined that citizens could belittle and defame our beloved country. Hopefully, some enthusiastic, loyal congressman will propose a law that will stop the abuse of the freedom of speech. – Patricia Weber, La Jolla